Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Fixed typo errors on my comment
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Jitendra_Barde
Line 582: Line 582:
::Tone is not appropriate fan cruft fluff includes “astounded and impressed the audience when she melodically sang the songs” “Ziting triumphed “ “her first public recognition and dreams coming true” “Li Ziting's father has always loved his motherland” “Ziting have always loved both Thai and chinese culture regardless as she adores both culture and speaks both language effortlessly.” “Ziting's favorite pet dog called 'Melody' suddenly died” “a trending hashtag #JusticeForMimi” Please remove. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 18:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::Tone is not appropriate fan cruft fluff includes “astounded and impressed the audience when she melodically sang the songs” “Ziting triumphed “ “her first public recognition and dreams coming true” “Li Ziting's father has always loved his motherland” “Ziting have always loved both Thai and chinese culture regardless as she adores both culture and speaks both language effortlessly.” “Ziting's favorite pet dog called 'Melody' suddenly died” “a trending hashtag #JusticeForMimi” Please remove. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 18:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for highlighting, i will do the needful. [[User:Thisasia|Thisasia]] ([[User talk:Thisasia|talk]]) 18:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for highlighting, i will do the needful. [[User:Thisasia|Thisasia]] ([[User talk:Thisasia|talk]]) 18:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

== 19:34, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Ashishtheblogger ==
{{Lafc|username=Ashishtheblogger|ts=19:34, 13 March 2024|draft=Draft:Jitendra_Barde}}
My article was rejected [[User:Ashishtheblogger|Ashishtheblogger]] ([[User talk:Ashishtheblogger|talk]]) 19:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:34, 13 March 2024

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


March 7

00:14, 7 March 2024 review of submission by 49.157.61.171

I was researching the credibility of this news outlet. I found a Wikipedia draft with tone issues. I tried to fix them, but I'm currently seeing that the draft is locked for editing. Why? 49.157.61.171 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, did you read what it says? "Spam. Multiple instances of block evasion to promote this piece of spam". Drmies (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help-me request regarding Draft:Gaganyaan-4

Three days into the AfC process and already I'm stuck. The process at Draft:Gaganyaan-4 became side-lined when someone else created a stub Gaganyaan-4 article. (Disclaimer: I've been hacking at the draft myself, not just commenting as a reviewer.) (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdsds: yeah, that happens occasionally; it can be frustrating, but not easily prevented, unfortunately. The draft author (or anyone else) should now selectively merge the salient additional info and sources into the published article. I've declined the draft on this basis. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:50, 7 March 2024 review of submission by 50.200.118.243

Can you please edit the page title for this draft to James_Fox_(documentarian) because the page James_C._Fox already links to another page. I can't seem to update the page title. Thank you. 50.200.118.243 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to worry about the title for the time being. If (and that remains quite a big 'if') this is accepted, the accepting reviewer will move it to an appropriate title when it is published.
Feel free to ask a question either here or at the Teahouse, but not both, as that duplicates the effort and wastes resources. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 7 March 2024 review of submission by 176.33.244.31

The submission must be accepted without reason, stop rejecting and declining this. All the ones named "Woodle" or "Woodles" are already mentioned, and I'm able to find the fourth. What will happen after the submission being accepted? 176.33.244.31 (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This dab draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, let alone "accepted without reason" (whatever that means). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, how to accept this disambiguation? If declining and rejecting are not allowed, what will be happened? 176.33.244.31 (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't "accept things without reason"; you need to make a case. Why do these topics need a disambiguation page? 331dot (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are comments I sent, and the cases are already made here. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you have answered my question. Why do these need a disambiguation page? They don't seem likely to be confused with each other. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you can see the questions at the draft. Second, the disambiguation also includes what "Woodles" means. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care what Disney wiki does.(on-draft comments are for reviewers only, discussion should take place on the draft talk page) Please review WP:DAB and cite the specific policies which you feel support the creation of a disambiguation pagem and the reasons why. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see any disambiguations with citations or references of anything? 176.33.244.31 (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my job to make your case for you. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I'll try to make it enough to accept if I could not find one. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 7 March 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:14:BC4C:98A8:94BD:BF85:9236

Need to Create article for actor Jishnu Raghavan because he was an Indian actor I written this article with reliable sources 2409:40F4:14:BC4C:98A8:94BD:BF85:9236 (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you "need" to do this? You appear to be editing while logged out, please return to your account. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot:, they do have several accounts which is why they are WP:LOUTSOCKing. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I wouldn't recommend letting them create this article, especially on Ponyo's talk page, where they had the WP:IDHT attitude of saying they would never give up on creating the article. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It (in its various permutations) must be on so many reviewers' watch lists by now that it'll be some feat to get it through. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Maestro110

Dear Wikipedia, my question is that, if there is no any supporting reference is available except facebook and youtube, but the original place/thing exists physically, and it is well notable place in the related entity. So how can I publish my article where nothing is it at the newspaper or the magazines etc.? Maestro110 (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maestroi110 Your draft is in your sandbox, so I fixed the link to it. If you have no independent reliable sources to summarize in an article about this topic, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Wikipedia is not for merely documenting the existence of something. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Hritacharya

What are the details you believe i must add. From the web we have around 100 mentions. Hritacharya (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hritacharya: I have rejected this draft, and it will therefore not be considered further at this time.
You still need to disclose your COI / paid-editing, though, lest you get blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Arhan Jain

Look, some dumb fellow- 'KylieTastic' is disapproving my Wikipage! He gives multiple reasons!

1.) 'Not in-depth'. OK true but bro there are like 100 pages where there are incomplete informations...what happened while approving that?? That to I personally told him that I would write more after confirming the facts with the elders...oh the wikipage that I am reffering from is about our temple by the way.

2.) 'No Reliable source'. What the hell bro...I did say him that it was my temple...of course I (or my family) know the maximum...!

3.) 'Secondary'! Wow bro...secondary source he asks for! Bro, say one thing...how should I write some reference of the new topic if the topic is new(i.e. new topic means I am the first one to talk about and so there is no 'another editor' to refer from)!

4.) 'Independent'!? Bro...I have no words....

Bro look, I gave my proper reasons for you guys...now it is up to you guys. I want him to be notified if you find me way and reason for this defense right! link for the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Koti_Basadi,_Moodbidre Arhan Jain (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the first to write about a topic, then it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article about it can be accepted into Wikipedia. Period.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Arhan Jain

Look, some dumb fellow- 'KylieTastic' is disapproving my Wikipage! He gives multiple reasons!

1.) 'Not in-depth'. OK true but bro there are like 100 pages where there are incomplete informations...what happened while approving that?? That to I personally told him that I would write more after confirming the facts with the elders...oh the wikipage that I am reffering from is about our temple by the way.

2.) 'No Reliable source'. What the hell bro...I did say him that it was my temple...of course I (or my family) know the maximum...!

3.) 'Secondary'! Wow bro...secondary source he asks for! Bro, say one thing...how should I write some reference of the new topic if the topic is new(i.e. new topic means I am the first one to talk about and so there is no 'another editor' to refer from)!

4.) 'Independent'!? Bro...I have no words....

Bro look, I gave my proper reasons for you guys...now it is up to you guys. I want him to be notified if you find me way and reason for this defense right! link for the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Koti_Basadi,_Moodbidre Arhan Jain (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arhan Jain: please do not insult reviewers, or anyone else for that matter; and I for one don't think 'bro' is an appropriate way to address others.
As for your draft  Courtesy link: Draft:Koti Basadi, Moodbidre, it is completely unreferenced. This means it fails the core requirements of verifiability and notability, and was therefore correctly declined.
That being the case, do you have a question you would like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. Wikipedia likely has many inappropriate articles that volunteers simply haven't addressed yet. This is not a reason to add more inappropriate articles. If you want to help us, please identify any inappropriate articles you see for possible action. We're only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Nahnathanhatthat

To make this worthy to be on the wikipedia page Nahnathanhatthat (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnathanhatthat: that's not a question, any more than this is a viable article draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:04, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Sativasir

Why did my article get rejected? What can I do different to get it published? Sativasir (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as advertising and misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. That's all I can say because your draft was suppressed from even administrators. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:21, 7 March 2024 review of submission by 1Tytonidae1

Since having my article rejected, I've implemented revisions, added substantially more content, and added reliable published secondary sources to demonstrate notability. What are next steps? 1Tytonidae1 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typically a rejected article may not be resubmitted, but if you have fundamentally changed the draft in a way that you think addresses the concern of the reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected it. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 7 March 2024 review of submission by Hkc345

The name of the Person on the Wikipedia page has an accent on top of the letter "a" (Suárez) but the cited sources do not have the accent (Suarez) because some languages, newspapers, etc. do not use accents, would it be an issue overall? Thank You. Hkc345 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming https://www.jorgesuarezpianist.com is owned by Suarez himself, so per WP:ABOUTSELF (and the newspapers you mentioned) the accent should not be there. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

06:06, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Jameskelivn22

Article publication Help Hello wiki team,

Thank you for assessing my content. I am interested in contributing valuable information to the Wikipedia knowledge hub. however, I am new to here. Please help me to how I can do so. Jameskelivn22 (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameskelivn22: you can find pretty much all you need for article creation by following the advice at WP:YFA. As for general editing advice, the welcome message on your talk page provides many useful links.
As for advice on the AfC review process and drafting, you'll need to be more specific as to what sort of help you're looking for? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:40, 8 March 2024 review of submission by 2406:B400:72:B39:2846:C6C3:986C:8310

I have added Multiple independent references. Kindly suggest what specific changes and references are required. 2406:B400:72:B39:2846:C6C3:986C:8310 (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If new sources are available which were not considered earlier and which you believe would establish notability, you may appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 8 March 2024 review of submission by 2001:EE0:4BCC:2E80:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E

Why did my draft get declined? I just made a circular redirect for the template. 

2001:EE0:4BCC:2E80:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
request redirects here. ltbdl (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 8 March 2024 review of submission by 2601:140:9502:23B0:10D8:58F2:6159:9627

What additional sources could this article be missing? We've illustrated that he is an american lawyer and an author with proven citations from several linked resources. 2601:140:9502:23B0:10D8:58F2:6159:9627 (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read and understand the notability criteria, which are linked to from every decline notice attached to this draft. Being "an american lawyer and an author" are not among these, at least not in and of themselves. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Poplopoa

Please help me as i want to help people Poplopoa (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Poplopoa: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Don't let it stop you helping people, though; that is an eminently laudable goal. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Prasunaeco

1. We have created sandbox with all details and hyper links. While submitting it is showing an error to update the references list. We have already added references list. Request to resolve this and hel[ us to submit the contents for review. 2, My user name is appearing in title heading. Want to replace it as Dr. Asha Prasuna as title of my page. Prasunaeco (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prasunaeco: I have moved your draft from your sandbox to the draft space, you can now find it at Draft:Asha Prasuna. I also added the AfC submission template; when you're ready to submit this for review, just click on the blue 'submit' button.
Before you do, there are a couple of things you need to put right:
  1. You need to support the draft contents with inline citations, see WP:REFB / WP:ILC.
  2. Please remove all inline external links from the body text; convert to citations where relevant.
There is also quite a lot of layout, formatting, etc. work to be done, but those can be dealt with once we've established that the subject is notable and all the information has been verified.
BTW, who is "we" in your question? And what is your relationship to the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:30, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Raisingmamaygma

help me Raisingmamaygma (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raisingmamaygma: you'll need to be more specific than that. What help do you need?
There is nothing at Draft:Reymark Alcorcon, except a redirect to a non-existent target Reymark Alcorcon (Web Developer) which has been deleted. There is a draft at Draft:Reymark Alcorcon (Web Developer), but that has been rejected.
It appears you're engaged in promotional editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. My advice would be not to pursue this any further, as you're likely to get blocked for spamming, sooner or later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Cappyz

I need help with citing references, specifically for this page. This is my first page that I made & it’s harder than it looks. And I’m asking what do I do about it? Cappyz (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cappyz: for notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites a YouTube video by the publisher (non-independent), interview with the developer (ditto), and what looks like a crowd-sourced set of reviews (user-generated), none of which meets the GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the tip. I’ll get rid of those. Cappyz (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 8 March 2024 review of submission by LeahNJ

I would like guidance on why the page was rejected? LeahNJ (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeahNJ: per the reviewer's comment, "This is written up in a more promotional manner than a LinkedIn resume." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:40, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Cappyz

I don’t know how to make a page, if anyone has experience could they help?

Page Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:One_Hand_Clapping_(video_game)

Edit: slowly going insane because of Wikipedia’s wacky rules & conditions. 

Cappyz (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:One Hand Clapping (video game) was rejected it is not a notable topic, it won't be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cappyz, the "rules & conditions" are not "wacky" your just ignoring what the notices say. The notices say multiple, in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent sources are required and you kept resubmitting with primary non-independent sources. KylieTastic (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I should slow down on reading. Cappyz (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 8 March 2024 review of submission by Alexjames12

I am requesting assistance because I need help to fix up my article and publish it, need help from an expert to help me fix the issues I am having when I am trying to publish it Alexjames12 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexjames12 the Help desk is here to provide advice but does not assist in creating articles. What I can tell you is that most, if not all, of the sources are not reliable so suggest taking a look at WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for some sources that are considered reliable along with Your first article. S0091 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:15, 8 March 2024 review of submission by REF17

Unclear on why article was unaccepted. There is significant coverage in local media and semi-frequent national coverage. Currently holding a high level position at a branch of a major national organization. REF17 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@REF17 holding a position at a local branch of national organization is not enough nor is being a candidate for a local political position (see WP:NPOL). The national coverage is all brief mentions or named in a list which is not nearly enough to meet notability. S0091 (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


March 9

00:53, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Peter Griffin Explains

Why did you decline it? I worked very hard on it. It took me 1 hour to write it Peter Griffin Explains (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't an article, it was an essay. It was "what PGE thinks about this topic". DS (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:07, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Bello aristol

I’m requesting assistance because my article was rejected. Bello aristol (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@bello aristol: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Mode Trevor

How can I fix this error? Mode Trevor (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@mode trevor: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dupe ltbdl (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

09:43, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Mode Trevor

I have changed my article and wish for it to be published. Mode Trevor (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 9 March 2024 review of submission by 2A10:8012:13:BCB4:DB:90A4:9757:57C4

I do not understand why the article was declined for  not  been adequately supported by reliable sources

since it do includes several well known and reliable sources. Regards Igal Stulbach 2A10:8012:13:BCB4:DB:90A4:9757:57C4 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Most of the sources are related to you and/or are not significant coverage of you. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Rcjqffm

It is still not clear to me/us in what way this article seems to be written in the 'style of an advertisement'. There is nothing to sell here. We, the 2 authors, have no personal interest, but want to inform readers about an important amendment of the Council of Europe's CEFR. So may I once again ask for more specific criticism so we can alter those items, parts, passages which seem to be out of line with Wikipedia policies. Thanks! 

Rcjqffm (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say you "want to inform readers about an important amendment of the Council of Europe's CEFR" that sounds precisely like advertising? Theroadislong (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Xeno21x8

New editor so I may need just a bit assistance. Does this article require more suitable references? Should it be expanded as it's too short? Or a combination of both? Just trying to play it safe here haha. Xeno21x8 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that it may not be resubmitted at this time. All the sources provided are about his company(not him personally) or are associated with him; there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I see, would you recommend I create an article about the company on that note? Xeno21x8 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the company receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization, an article may be possible. Sources cannot include brief mentions, staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, or primary sources; sources should provide in depth coverage of what they see as important/significant/influential about the company- not what it might see as important about itself. Please read Your First article. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Akaayu

Please help me or guide me to published this article.I am new here I don't know any guide or policy. Akaayu (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's a good idea to learn some about Wikipedia first, by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, and using the new user tutorial. Diving right in to creating articles often leads to disappointment and frustration. Wikipedia is not a place to just document the existence of something and tell what it does- articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Slasher2point1

Hi,

My page that I am looking to create for the wife of Tommy Nelson was rejected because Imdb is not considered a reliable source for verifying her film and TV roles. Would the Letterboxd work instead as a reliable source?

Thank you! Slasher2point1 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, No. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for editorial control fact-checking. Letterboxd seems to be like GoodReads (and iMDB, and almost all wikis, including Wikipedia) in that its content is user generated. It is therefore not usable as a reliable source. Your absolute first task in creating an article (ideally before you write so much as a single word of it, so as to save you wasted work) is to find several (generally at least 3) sources, each of which meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarity, this is greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slasher2point1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ColinFine (talk), apologies, one more question. What would you suggest for a website then to verify roles as the main ones are IMDb and Letterboxd for actors? With her appearance on the Show High Maitenance, would it work better to site HBO itself (https://www.hbo.com/high-maintenance/season-2/8-ghost) or something from a website like Vulture (https://www.vulture.com/article/high-maintenance-episodes-ranked-worst-best.html). Any help would be greatly appreciated as the previous page I made was for a feature film actor and this is my first time making one with more shorts/television roles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slasher2point1 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Alexjames12

Why is my submission keep getting rejected and the subject am writing about is notable Alexjames12 (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the subject may be in the world, you have consistently failed to show that he meets that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so the draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:42, 9 March 2024 review of submission by Sdsds

The content at Gaganyaan-5 warrants moving it to draftspace. (See also Draft:Gaganyaan-4 and its talk page.) AFCH might allow doing this with appropriate messages posted to user talk pages, etc. Is this currently possible with AFCH, or do other helper scripts do this task? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

01:11, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Emmykeys001

in writing articles Emmykeys001 (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmykeys001, your draft is highly promotional and entirely unreferenced. It is not appropriate for this encyclopedia. Read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:18, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Job R You Tshavis Victorious

The only way I could see the point is to get Job R You Tshavis Victorious (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Job R You Tshavis Victorious: what? ltbdl (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft seems to have no content at all. Please read WP:YFA. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Poplopoa

why?? Poplopoa (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@poplopoa: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. deleting the rejection notice will not change that. ltbdl (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 10 March 2024 review of submission by 219.74.85.151

Hi, our draft has been declined twice and we would really appreciate any advice on this. The feedback given on this article was that it reads as an advertisement. Could you specify in what way does the article appears as so? Is it due to the lack of sources or the general tone of the article? Also, on the matter of sources, we cited from a variety of other sources apart from our own. Hope to hear back soon, thank you! 219.74.85.151 (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in to your account. Who is "we"? If you work for this organization, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure; please also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 10 March 2024 review of submission by RashidB123

I have added several independent sources to confirm the notability of the person, however, the draft has been rejected again. Can you please help me to identify the gaps/redraft to enable me get the approval.

Thanks for your help RashidB123 (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected there is nothing further you can do, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 10 March 2024 review of submission by 77.102.77.218

How can we get this draft looked at again for publication? There is a lot more information now 77.102.77.218 (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we'? user accounts are for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected last week. This means the the rejecting reviewer (@331dot) had come to the conclusion that sources sufficient to establish notability simply don't exist.
The sources you have recently added, even if they were properly formatted citations, rather than external links, would do nothing whatever to alter that, since not one of them is indpependent of Quinn.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:55, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Wilfie66

Hi Can you tell me if my article has been submitted for review or do I need to re-submit? I see that a couple of editors made some changes on March 3rd but these don't seem to be reflected in the status of my article. I'm new to all this so would appreciate any help please. Wilfie66 (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you put an IP address where your draft title, Draft:Soulla Petrou should go, but as indicated on the draft, it was successfully submitted. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 10 March 2024 review of submission by Snigdhakm

Hello Wikipedia Team. Not only this article, there are many other articles of many other eminent actors of Bengali Film Industry in Wikipedia. They are truly required to be mentioned here. We do need a lot of help of you all to add them up here.

Apart from that I have put all the true and possible references of this article to be established in Wikipedia. Mayukh Mukhrejee is an eminent actor since his childhood and is a multi talented person, whom the Bengali film industry knows well.

Thanks for your kind help in advance. Snigdhakm (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Snigdhakm. You have not demonstrated notability through the use of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Please read WP:NACTOR carefully. Qcne (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

05:01, 11 March 2024 review of submission by ASR.killadi.da

Please approve this article because it is updated to my best of knowledge. ASR.killadi.da (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has not been submitted for review, but it will be declined because it is unsourced with no evidence of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 11 March 2024 review of submission by BrizAlmighty

Not understanding why the reliability of the magazines cited is questionable. BrizAlmighty (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 11 March 2024 review of submission by Vastelian-Chairman

My page was declined with no reason My Wikipedia page for Vastelland was declined. I do not know why, it said that it had issue with getting a reliable source. I don't know what that means as isn't that the point of a Wikipedia page? Vastelland is a country with similar autonomy to Molossia, a micro-nation in Nevada. The main difference between Molossia and Vastelland is popularity. Many people know of Molossia, not many know of Vastelland other than close people (this is due to security issues). Please don't take down my page again, I really want it on here. Thank you - Vastelian Chairman. Vastelian-Chairman (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended(you has a statement there instead). The draft was not declined "for no reason". You have no independent reliable sources to support the content of your draft. A draft about your micronation must summarize what independent sources choose on their own to say about it. If there are no such sources, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. It doesn't matter if that's because you choose not to otherwise publicize your micronation for security reasons. In any event, Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first, Others need to write about your micronation before there can be an article here to summarize what they say. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:38, 11 March 2024 review of submission by Cooldudeseven7

I previously have gotten a notice saying that I do not have a good source, and my article, SuperSKU, got declined. I have added a few sources to resolve this. Is my article worthy of Wikipedia yet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3ASuperSKU Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews. If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer(please also see their note about conflict of interest), you may resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 11 March 2024 review of submission by G.B.A.J.Hudson

Please would you tell me where I have referenced Wikipedia in this submission G.B.A.J.Hudson (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have now removed the references to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 11 March 2024 review of submission by Fellow22

Hello, how can i get a rejected article reviewed again after editing? Fellow22 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fellow22: normally you can't, that's what rejection means – end of the road. If there are sources which weren't considered earlier and which you believe would establish notability, you may however appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay, thanks for your response Fellow22 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:52, 11 March 2024 review of submission by DegenerateCabbage

review of submission by DegenerateCabbage Please review this draft for publication. It was made with the help of the translation tool, but it's my first time using it for translating *to* English, so, help is much appreciated. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Incident_at_the_Quran_and_Etrat_Clinic_in_Qom DegenerateCabbage (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DegenerateCabbage I fixed the header to provide a link to the draft as intended. You will need to read Referencing for beginners. The Persian Wikipedia likely has different requirements than here, we are usually stricter. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the messed up references. When I translate articles using the translation tool, I just drag and drop the references and it works seamlessly. I wonder why it didn't work here... And of course, that is not acceptable. I would've worked on it, if I wasn't already told that it's not in-depth enough. I understand the point, it's a developing situation. I'll wait for more info, thanks. DegenerateCabbage (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 11 March 2024 review of submission by DheimOhss

Need help with declined submission for Radio Wolf draft I am trying to understand why my draft submission was declined and how I can improve it. The article is here - Draft:Radio Wolf

The first claim is that their soundtrack release, PROXIMITY, is covered under the wiki page for the artist that they worked with on the project. I feel like since they shared responsibilities in the production of the soundtrack that it should be included in this new wiki page. In fact, Radio Wolf (the topic of my draft) is the person that was contacted to make the album.

The second claim was a bit odd as I referenced 12 other artists that Radio Wolf has worked with in major capacity, such as being producer, on various albums, as well as listed many of his own personal works, so the claim that he isn't separate enough from Parallels is strange. DheimOhss (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DheimOhss I fixed the header to provide a link to your draft as intended. He doesn't seem to meet the definition of a notable musician as an individual. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the solution then be to provide better citations for his work? DheimOhss (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need citations that show he meets the notability definition as an individual. Paul McCartney merits a standalone article due to his notable solo career, not because he was part of The Beatles. Which aspect or aspects of the notable musician definition do you claim he meets? 331dot (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help on this, btw. :)
I think the claims I would make are:
- That he is referenced on the IMDB for the soundtrack https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8718300/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cl_sm as an original song writer, and the album itself won Best Song by the LA Film Awards (which I cited in my original draft). I believe that would be #9 and #10 on the "notable musician" page as it won first place and "performance in a television show or notable film", which the movie is.
- He also satisfies #10 by having his remix of Miss Deringer's "Black Tears" featured in the American TV series, 'How I met Your Mother' DheimOhss (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see (but I may have missed it) an article about something called the "LA Film Awards", so that wouldn't contribute to notability.
10 also says "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article."
Even his songwriting (which would fall under WP:COMPOSER) seems to be as part of a team/collaborative effort. I'm not seeing how he is notable as an individual. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Film Awards are in my citations as #3, here - https://www.lafilmawards.net/single-post/january-2021 That counts as #9 I believe. While #10 does say "if this is the only claim", I think it isn't his only claim as the LA Film Awards satisfies #9 and then #10, either by itself or partially, by the movie soundtrack and the song in a TV series. DheimOhss (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DheimOhss, the LA Film Awards is a non-notable and overtly promotional "pay to play" award business with pretty much no credibility in Hollywood. The filmmakers nominate themselves and pay non-refundable fees to be considered. They give out dozens of these awards every month. Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

01:36, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 2409:4070:4401:C5C9:4D2E:2CA1:57F0:D080

Please tell me how to improve article. please describe this! 2409:4070:4401:C5C9:4D2E:2CA1:57F0:D080 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you're talking about Draft:Chandu Kanuri, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:00, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 218.145.201.226

I would like to know if the way references and external links are written is the correct form,or not. I would appreciate any advice or help I could get. Thank you. 218.145.201.226 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sixteen numbered references are all formatted incorrectly. If done correctly, they should display full bibliographic details, instead of just a number in square brackets. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if the referencing and citations are good with this last changes.

06:17, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Hamster1215

Why my article cannot being posted public ？ Is there any Missing information ，i just need to Create a Article about for Information about my Local Community Radio Station Hamster1215 (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamster1215, your draft lacks references to significant coverage of this radio station in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the radio station. Please read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Habnster1215, please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:29, 12 March 2024 review of submission by RandalKeithNorton

What changes do I need to make? I've presented sources of the phrase being used in various contexts. RandalKeithNorton (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RandalKeithNorton, please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Hkc345

I'm just wondering whether or not the use of the subject's own website as a reference for the information on the subject's Wikipedia Page is acceptable. Similarly, would using photos and images as references be acceptable? Thank you Hkc345 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hkc345: you're really not asking the right questions. You should be asking how to demonstrate that the person is notable by Wikipedia standards, and how to reference the information so that it is verifiable from reliable sources. Not to mention, how to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner, and without copypasting content from external sources.
But yes, you can cite the subject's own website as a source, for very limited and entirely non-contentious information such as date and place of birth.
As for images, they have no bearing on anything at this stage, and are in that sense largely useless. BTW, you've marked the images as your 'own work', which implies a connection with this subject. Please disclose that, in the same manner as you have disclosed another paid-editing relationship on your user page. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkc345, an acceptable Wikipedia article about a person almost entirely summarizes the significant coverage that published reliable sources independent of the person devote to the person. Your draft lacks any such references to independent sources and is not acceptable for that reason. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the replies.
When I mentioned images, I was referring to images and scans of newspapers and published sources. The sources for the information on the subject is not very readily available online.
And for information about his life and careers, does the same procedure applies?
Thank you Hkc345 (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, sources do not need to be online: they only need to be published. A reader may have to visit a Library or Archive to access the sources, but this is okay. You shouldn't scan in and upload any sources as this might breach copyright, just ensure the reference is formatted correctly to allow a reader to find the offline source if they so wish. Qcne (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Mohamedmarzz

I want to resubmit the article. I edited it and the article has no advertising tone to it, it's just stating facts! Mohamedmarzz (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.
To quote @DoubleGrazing further up this page: "If there are sources which weren't considered earlier and which you believe would establish notability, you may however appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft". But if you are going to do this, you had better be very sure that the new sources you are citing meet the criteria in WP:42, otherwise you are likely to annoy the reviewer by wasting their time. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Renas Osman

So far I have double checked the sources twice, they were reliable, even some of them from Apple, Yahoo News, and other international organization, but it got rejected

Thanks for responses Renas Osman (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is only one of the criteria applied to sources to establish notability. Another is indepedence. Basically, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
I haven't looked closely at them, but it is clear from the titles that most of your sources are not independent of Najm: they are either based on interviews, or on information he has provided.
To establish notability, you should look at every one of your sources critically, to check that it meets all the criteria in golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 42.108.124.108

Help me to publish this article. 42.108.124.108 (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What help are you seeking? Have you seen the messages left by reviewers? 331dot (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb, Google search, YouTube, Wikipedia and Commons are not independent reliable sources I’m afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Elina Lovtsova

Good afternoon, please tell me what’s wrong with the sources, which ones should be added? Elina Lovtsova (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elina Lovtsova: without putting too fine a point on it, the sources are rubbish. All churnalism (or worse) and primary sources, not one of them contributes towards notability per WP:NCORP.
As for what sources should you add, I don't know. I don't know where you got all this information from (although I could hazard a wild guess...), but that's what you should cite as your sources.
BTW, what is your relationship with this subject? I will post a message on your talk page regarding paid editing; please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not show that the company meets the special Wikipedia defition of a notable company and do not provide significant coverage of the company. The draft does little more than tell of the existence of the company and its routine activities; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the company and what makes it important/significant/influential as a company- not what the company may see as important about itself.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if you add a link to the official website, won’t that be enough? Elina Lovtsova (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elina Lovtsova: enough for what, to establish notability? No. Primary sources, especially ones close to the subject, don't even contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Yevrowl

Greetings! Please, if possible, help with advice. Are there any other sentences that may not correspond to the encyclopedic style? And if so, which ones exactly? Thanks a lot. Yevrowl (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yevrowl, I can see you've put effort into improving the overall quality of the submission, which is commendable. However, there are still some areas that need attention. When reading through, some sentences give the impression of promoting him. Take for instance, "Since 2017, he has focused on the digitalization of Kyiv and the implementation of blockchain technologies at the state level (Kyiv Smart City [uk], state registers, state procurement, and the like)." Also, I noticed that you've included every detail about him. Please consider removing any unnecessary sentences that lack support from sources or are simply not necessary. Additionally, it would be beneficial to trim down unnecessary references to avoid citation clutter. I hope this helps. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer:, thanks very much for help! I removed unnecessary (unconfirmed, additional and clarifying) information, and also checked the supporting links for uniqueness. Yevrowl (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Corporationstation

This seems to meet criteria for creation, though I'd love some feedback from others. Corporationstation (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Corporationstation: evidently not, since it has been rejected as non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 12 March 2024 review of submission by 2406:7400:51:EDE8:5472:B902:1AEC:222C

Please publish this article as it is legitimate content to publish as he is upcoming producer in Karnataka please any one review and publish 2406:7400:51:EDE8:5472:B902:1AEC:222C (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't properly linked to the draft, and your IP has no other edits- remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Sri Hari has been rejected, and will not be considered further. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Omadacycline

Can help me to reference and cite it? Omadacycline (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find references for you, but you may see Referencing for Beginners for advice on writing references. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:12, 12 March 2024 review of submission by Zebes94

The email paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org is not working, I got this message back: Address not found Your message wasn't delivered to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.

Is there any other way to report a user trying to sell me a service to publish my article? Zebes94 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zebes94 email arbcom-enwikimedia.org and let them also know about this issues you encountered using paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org. S0091 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Primefac so he is aware and might be able to provide additional guidance given he is on the the WP:ARBCOM committee. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @S0091 Thanks for the prompt response! I have sent the email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org including my issue with the paid-en-wp email like you mentioned.
Thanks for all the help :) Zebes94 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @S0091 I sent my email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org and someone replied to me saying that the correct email to send these kinds of issues is paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. I orignially sent my issue to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org because that's the email stated in the warning section of the Articles for Creation wikipedia page: Wikipedia:Articles for creation Any idea on how to tell someone from AfC to fix that? I tried to do it myself but don't have permission. Zebes94 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zebes94 thanks raising the issue! S0091 (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error message when submitting

Hello,

I am trying to submit my article for review, but whenever I do I get this error message: "An error occurred (TypeError: undefined is not an object (evaluating 'json.query.pages')). Please try again or refer to the help desk." Why might this be, and what should I do? Thanks, Slamforeman (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slamforeman you do no identify which draft but Draft:Glenn Postolski is pending review. S0091 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 12 March 2024 review of submission by LivingWellat50

I keep getting declined. I DO NOT KNOW WHY. PLEASE HELP LivingWellat50 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that the draft should properly be titled Draft:2026 Oregon gubernatorial election, all of the provided references concern the 2022 election, while none address the 2026 election. Obviously there will eventually be an article on this race, but unless you find some more forward-looking references, perhaps it is simply too soon for it at the moment. --Finngall talk 21:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 12 March 2024 review of submission by DerekMuttley

Hello, Perhaps someone would point me in the right direction for this.. I have been assiduously attempting to provide citations for the page I created "Wilsons Tales of the Borders" , but my data entry skills, and multiple word processor skills seem to have been defeated by the citation editor.

Could you tell me where to look, or how to overcome the logical impasse presented by an item which is intending to provide contextual material about a publication which does not exist on the internet? - Even the Newspaper archive only has a reference to a parent journal. When I attempt to provide a citation to the main printed book dealing with the topic, the citation edit input panel accepts data, and apparently closes normally, yet has neither accepted the entry or returned a validation error.

IS there, perhaps, some non-intuitive validation going on, or something as simple as 'there must be an entry in every box' which is not being indicated as an error?

- Using Safari 17.2.

Apologies if these kind of queries should go elsewhere. I shall take no offence if you tell me to just go away..

R DerekMuttley (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DerekMuttley the draft has no references and some of the content appears to to be original research. Please see Your first article for guidance. S0091 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
That makes sense, according to what can be seen on the page. However, I provided links to different sources, and have spent far too much time wrestling with the idiosyncrasies of the citation panel to try and provide a reference to the major book, published on 2018, from which some of the passages are drawn. Even quoting an ISBN, publisher, author, page numbers, doesn't appear to work. My 40 years in IT design says that either you accept the user's input, or you provide an error message explaining why it is refused. Neither of these things happened, which I regard as a failing in the software. Given that the book has no web presence, but it must appear in Nielson's ISBN catalogue for UK publications I'm at a bit of a loss.
I HAVE read the help pages on inserting a citation.
Oh, one other minor point - the Publication I am providing background for is mentioned in several other pages relating to the creator - JM Wilson, and to editors -Alexander Leighton etc. Given that WikiP is already quoting it, it seemed trivial, when I started, to make a page that the existing articles could link to which gave a bit of background to the publication that is already described.
Despite it's huge circulation and popularity in the mid nineteenth century there are no digital copies of the publication, though plenty of reprints of selected content. It deserves a bit of background and amplification if only to supplement the existing author's pages.
So to return to the plot. If I alter links to web references, does that satisfy the criteria? Reference to anything on the internet could be held to be ephemeral though. My problem seems to be that I am attempting to provide a description and definition of a work which exists in reprint form in thousands of libraries yet has no digitised original copies. A catch-22 ?
R DerekMuttley (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerekMuttley use the Visual Editor. When in edit mode over the right there is a pencil icon where you can switch between Source editor or Visual. Select Visual then click on the double quotes icon (next to the link icon). Automatic works for most websites, Google Books and WorldCat links and sometimes ISBNs. If the ISBN does not work and it's not available on Google Books or WorldCat, then select the manual tab>book and fill out pertinent details. See also WP:INTREFVE. I can't say the sources are enough because they have not yet been cited and I agree, Wikipedia does not make generating citations easy especially if they are not online. S0091 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. I'm relieved that it isn't just me then.
If I may (mis)interprete what you say - use the markup language!
I'm happy with that. Have to brush up on the SGML derivative / syntax etc.
And I'll revisit my critique about data entry validation if I can find the right gateway for making change suggestions.
Many thanks for your help. Much appreciated.
R DerekMuttley (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

00:10, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Heartleap

Hello everyone! I was wondering if anyone could help me understand why my article was declined? I believe the submission's references do show that the subject qualifies for an article. Would it help to label the article a "stub," similar to this one for musician Gobbinjr? Thank you very much in advance for your help, I really appreciate it! Heartleap (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear how they pass WP:NSINGER? Theroadislong (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Hello! Thank you for looking over the draft! I believe the subject fulfills criteria 1 for musicians and ensembles (WP:NSINGER), but I understand that term "multiple" (in reference to the number of articles pertaining to the subject) is vague/subjective, so people could have differing opinions on what qualifies. Heartleap (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:12, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Journorc

I am wondering if you can link the form I have to sign since I know the person I am writing a wikipedia article about personally please Journorc (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@journorc: you don't sign a form, you declare it publicly. see here. ltbdl (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:19, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Klamakin

Hello, my newly created article just got rejected after many weeks of waiting to be reviewed. I'm new to Wikipedia and will appreciate any guidance on what should be corrected to make it pass. Thank you so much. Klamakin (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that resubmission is not possible at this time. You had no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her, just sources documenting her results. If you can find sources with significant coverage of her, you may first appeal to the rejecting reviewer. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a draft without first finding reliable independent sources (ones that meet WP:42) is like building a house without first surveying the site or checking local building regulations. At best, it is likely to require rebuilding (rewriting what you have written); and often it will be a complete waste of time, because the house cannot be built (your article cannot be accepted because the subject fails to pass Wikipedia's criteria for notability). ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:12, 13 March 2024 review of submission by WriterPankajRai

Yes, the writer is connected to the topic/subject. But still the content of the page is neutral and not promotional or biased.

Do let me know how to make it more neutral or what changes I should do to make it live. WriterPankajRai (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still have work to do to make it less promotional. On Wikipedia, there is no difference between "informational" and "promotional". Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You might have that, but you need to remove the promotional language and make sure the company is talked about in a very dry manner. As advised, see WP:SOLUTIONS.
You declared a connection; as you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that you make the stricter paid editing disclosure. You should do this on your user page and the draft talk page(not the draft itself, I will move it). 331dot (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:28, 13 March 2024 review of submission by 2003:EC:A70A:7701:50D:851E:4683:959A

Thanks for the review and feedback. I was wondering what kind of sources do you refer to base your rejection on, as the draft has more than 10 sources and all of them are from viable resources like official university websites or newspapers, and all are explicitly expressing the information cited about the person. I would like to improve the draft. 2003:EC:A70A:7701:50D:851E:4683:959A (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are by Buehler. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
See WP:42 for the kind of sources which are not just preferred, but required, in order to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. I reviewed the attached pages. I understand, however, please check the mentioned sources again. Of the 13 sources at the moment, there are 2 which could be directly related to the person (his website and a google scholar page). All other are as mentioned independent newspapers or official university websites. I will adapt the two sources in the draft. 2003:EC:A70A:7701:9C26:4306:3EDA:5686 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 13 March 2024 review of submission by 45.242.213.33

و 45.242.213.33 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Arabic Wikipedia- drafts must be in English. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Thisasia

Hello everyone, i want to ask about the review situation about this article since it has been pending for an approval for many days now. I have provided every requirements that i was asked to do by the previous reviewer, including all Rs. Please may I know the review situation so far? Please do let me know if there is still any thing I haven't done yet. Thanks Thisasia (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The review situation is simply as stated on the draft, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,021 pending submissions waiting for review." There is nothing more you need to do other than be patient- there is no way to guarantee a speedy review. Reviews are conducted by volunteers, choosing drafts to review in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oow got it, Thanks for your time. Thisasia (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Ronin408

My submission was declined recently for Draft:Ranil Piyaratna. I'm hoping to improve the draft and get it ready for resubmission.

From the decline notice, I understand that the draft requires more significant coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm currently gathering more reliable resources for notability.

In the meantime, are there any other aspects of the draft that need improvement beyond citations, like the structure, neutrality, or formatting? It would be really helpful if you could provide any specific feedback on what areas need the most work. Thank you. Ronin408 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
Much of your draft is unsourced; every substantive piece of information in an article about a living person must be sourced, see WP:BLP.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments; articles about people must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the person, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person- what makes them important/significant/influential according to sources(not according to the person themselves or their associates). 331dot (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 13 March 2024 review of submission by SamNCL

Hi, The article to which I'm referencing is the page title. I followed the same style and types of references used in the similar pharmaceutical companies such as Cambrex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrex_Corporation) and Lonza Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonza_Group) but my article was rejected for bad sourcing (not in-depth, reliable, secondary or strictly independent). I think they are secondary, independent and reliable, depth is more personal judgement. Could any give any guidance or advice on this please? Either I'm missing something very obvious but I would argue the article I have submitted is more in-line with Wikipedia's guidelines than the two articles linked above, this just seems really inconsistent. SamNCL (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists, Cambrex Corporation should probably be deleted it has no independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually a poor idea to use other random articles as a model, as those too could be problematic and you would be unaware of this. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SamNCL You don't need the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article or page; simply place the target page title in double brackets, like this, [[Joe Biden]] appears as Joe Biden.
You actually have too many sources, and most of those sources document the routine business activities of the company- Wikipedia is looking for what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a company and what makes it important/significant/influential as the sources see it- what we call the definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 13 March 2024 review of submission by TCWJ

Hi! I have been working and revising a draft for an article on a living person which was rejected again today. I have some questions concerning the reason, as I have a hard time understanding the evaluation of the sources and literature used in the articel. The reviewer contends that the "draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject); reliable; secondary; independent of the subject." The article has 9 different sources listed - 4 of these are in depth articles or reviews published in either peer-reviewed journal ('Research on Steiner Education') or as feature articles in journals and magazines with (non-academic) editorial processes ('Being Human' is a magazine covering all of the North-American anthroposophical scene; 'Zeitschrift Gegenwart' is a well established German magazine running since 1939 growing out of the political movement of 'Dreigliederung'). 4 other sources are from well established academic publishers (University of California Press; Palgrave Macmillian; State University of New York Press; Berliner Wissenshafts Verlag). These sources treat the subject of the article not exclusively, but as part of a discussion, however - as I also indirectly show by the quotations - the subject is not just mentioned in passing but referred to by claims and statements that import significance to the subject. In addition there is one interview published in Goetheanum, which is the worldwide publication for anthroposophy. I would like to ask someone to evaluate the sources and be specific about how this article draft does not fulfill the criteria for Wikipedia. In my experience with academic peer-review processes, rejections should be understandable in relation to the criteria set for publication. I have benefitted a lot from the earlier stages of this draft article where wiki-reviewers have pointed out weaknesses and lacks of the text. However, at the present stage I have a hard time understanding the evaluation and decision. Might there have been a lack of rigour in reviewing these sources? Thank you! TCWJ (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TCWJ: have you asked the reviewer who most recently declined this to elaborate? It would seem that's the easiest way forward, given that they've analysed the sources already (to the extent that this is possible, given that most of them are offline and the way some of them are cited) whereas we here at the help desk would have to carry out a whole new review. Bear in mind that anything written or said by the subject (including interviews) do not normally count towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Lakestein

i tried uploading club logo that was created by the owner SGFC Athletics but i kept getting it removed. . also the clubs photograph at the stadium during its activities were also removed as being copyrighted.

I will highly appreciate it if i get help and lead to get the logo added. Can anyone come to my aid Lakestein (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lakestein: this draft was accepted a month ago, so any further editing isn't an AfC matter anymore. You may wish to ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Olilke

This is my first article on Wikipedia. I don't have much of information, as he's a not well-know, yet very talented artist. As I learn more, I'll be updating it. Is it possible to do it this way? The information I have so far is accurate. Also, I'd like to add a self portrait of the painter the article is about. When I try to do that, I'm asked to verify that this is my own work. It is not, but it has no copywrite. How do I get around it? I have other questions, but let me start with these two. Thank you in advance, Olga. Olilke (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Olilke: may I ask a question in turn: where does the information in your draft come from, is it all from the one source you've listed (although not cited) at the bottom? While it isn't a requirement, per se, it would be a very good habit to get into for you to cite your sources inline, see WP:REFB / WP:ILC.
For this draft to be accepted, you will need to either cite sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, or else demonstrate that this person meets the special WP:ARTIST guideline. The single source currently shown is insufficient to do either.
As for the image, I would just leave it out for now, as it has no bearing on whether this draft will be accepted or not. (BTW, you say the image is not under copyright – how do you know that?)
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC for Draft:Li Ziting (Mimi Lee)

Draft:Li Ziting (Mimi Lee) Previously declined by @DoubleGrazing, Broc

Please i want to say that this declined submission this time probably have all reliable source needed for an article, The reviewer declined it just because of few English source that was used to reference her music work. Of which I do provided more than two source for her music. All her music has many Rs when you search them in chinese rather than English. The Baidu was never used to Cite for her bio but only used as an external links for chinese companies profile or description that was not on Wikipedia.

I provided lots of source for her Biography both in local news and independent source, all both in chinese and thai and not English hence a clear translation is required for clear understanding.

Sometimes when talking about source, I will probably say that Draft:Li Ziting (Mimi Lee) has more better sources than most of the countless artist celebrity article i have seen on Wikipedia, she got better source more than most of her Rocket Girls 101 colleagues articles on Wikipedia. She probably got better sources than this actress Wang Churan article. Thanks Thisasia (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered this on your talk page where you pinged me, but I guess you either didn't read my answer or didn't like it. Okay, let's wait for someone else to respond, so you at least get a second opinion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is not appropriate fan cruft fluff includes “astounded and impressed the audience when she melodically sang the songs” “Ziting triumphed “ “her first public recognition and dreams coming true” “Li Ziting's father has always loved his motherland” “Ziting have always loved both Thai and chinese culture regardless as she adores both culture and speaks both language effortlessly.” “Ziting's favorite pet dog called 'Melody' suddenly died” “a trending hashtag #JusticeForMimi” Please remove. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting, i will do the needful. Thisasia (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Ashishtheblogger

My article was rejected Ashishtheblogger (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1213558769"